WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 138

URGING THE LEGISLATURE TO PRIORITIZE THE CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION PROHIBITING THE USE OF "EXCITED DELIRIUM", OR SIMILAR PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS, AS A MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS, CAUSE OF DEATH, OR LEGAL THEORY IN THE STATE OF HAWAII.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Terez Amato and 6 co-sponsors

Hawaii urges legislation banning "excited delirium" concept from medical diagnoses, death determinations, and legal proceedings, affecting police custody death investigations.

Offered
#causeofdeath #exciteddelirium #legaltheory #legislation #medicaldiagnosis
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 138

Legislative bill overview

HR 138 is a non-binding resolution urging Hawaii's legislature to consider passing legislation that would prohibit the use of "excited delirium" as a medical diagnosis, cause of death, or legal defense in the state. Excited delirium is a contested medical concept sometimes invoked to explain sudden deaths during police encounters or restraint situations. The resolution requests the legislature study and potentially ban recognition of this concept in medical, legal, and official contexts.

Why is this important

Excited delirium determinations significantly impact how deaths—particularly those occurring during police interactions—are classified and investigated. The designation can influence whether cases are pursued as criminal matters, how families understand their loved ones' deaths, and what accountability mechanisms apply. This debate sits at the intersection of medical science, criminal justice, and civil rights, with real consequences for death investigations and police accountability.

Potential points of contention

  • Scientific validity dispute: Medical and law enforcement communities disagree about whether excited delirium is a legitimate medical condition or an unfalsifiable diagnosis used to explain custody deaths, with no single agreed-upon diagnostic criteria
  • Investigation and accountability implications: Banning the concept could change how deaths are investigated and classified, potentially shifting liability or forcing alternative explanations for sudden deaths
  • Medical autonomy versus regulation: Restricting what diagnoses medical examiners can use raises questions about professional judgment versus state mandates on acceptable medical terminology

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.